Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
STATION
CSPAN 5
CNN 4
CNNW 4
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
campaign for comment, but they did not return our calls. the obama administration has proposed revising estate planning rules. and one option would be ending this tax benefit. >> it would affect estate planning as we know it. this is something that is commonly done day in and day out and has been for many years. >> that liberal group americans for tax fairness action fund is now calling on release his gift tax returns. that will show more details on how much the couple gifted to their children and grandchildren over the years and how much they paid in taxes, wolf. >> lisa, thanks very much. >>> and you're in "the situation room." happening now, the israeli prime minister draws a chilling red line for iran at the united nations. does it mean military action is imminent? i'll ask the israeli ambassador to the united states this hour. also, syrian rebels scoring new victories on the battlefield thanks possibly to help from expats living right here in the united states. and a new twist in one of america's greatest unsolved mysteries. will drilling into a driveway finally uncover the remains
't heard the obama administration do that yet. is that the issue right now? >> well, as the prime minister said to the general assembly today, wolf, the drawing of the red line is designed to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work. we believe by drawing that red line you won't be increasing the chances of military engagement, you'll be significantly lessening the chances of a military engagement because the iranians have been presented with red lines in e past in trai of hormuz and they've backed down. we know they can see the color red. we're engaged in a conversation with the obama administratio about setting limits to iran's enrichment process because that's the part of the iranian nuclear program that we can actually see and mor. and that the part that's in facilities that areservle and are still lnerable. and so the obama administration's engaging with in a dialogue t it. you mention tt the secretary of state will be meeting with the prime minister this evening. thidengt willalking netanyahu tomorrow. th p of an ongoing dialogue that we've had to reach an understanding about
that will say in the first two years of the obama administration, there was democratic control of both houses of congress, and the president had a hard time getting his legislative agenda passed. caller: it's because the filibuster in the senate, i mean, when you need 60 votes and the democrats only had 59, so he had a hard time getting even healthcare through. host: all right, paul, we're going to move to andy on our line from independents, calling from florida. caller: sorry, i'm calling from south carolina. host: ok, andy is calling from south carolina where. in south carolina, andy? caller: columbia. host: ok. are you in favor of divided government or one party? caller: well, i'm not so sure i'm in favor of either one, unless -- except if divided government is going to give us what it's given us now and nothing gets done, nothing gets passed. we got a credit rating downgraded because one party says my way or the highway. that's not good governance. it's not -- there's no such thing as my way or the highway. we all have to compromise, you know, in a marriage, the husband doesn't get everyt
revolt against the obama administration's new calorie limits. ♪ tonight we are hungry ♪ . >> gretchen: the usda says it has a solution. putting the blame on parents for not giving them snacks. many people outraged over new cafeteria regulations that only allow high schoolers 850 calories. those are your headlines. >> brian: always goes back to the parents. >> steve: of course, blame the parents. teachers, no problem. moving on, iran's nuclear program will be front and center when benjamin netanyahu takes the floor at the united nations general assembly. david lee miller is out in the rain on the east side of manhattan and joins us live. good morning to you. >> good morning to you. the good news is, the rain has stopped. the controversy here at the united nations continues. the reviews of sorts continue to pour in regarding ahmadinejab's speech yesterday before the general assembly. some have described it as a kinder, gentler ahmadinejab, while others have said that he should not be compared to gandhi. in many ways he's stuck on the same familiar themes that he has for years, specifica
is that the obama administration has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. and governor romney may well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute could but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of salience in something like a presidential debate. so other than health care, i do not see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it isind of remarkable. the republicans who, during the 1990's for a while, we're seeing some sort of political profit attacking affirmative action given the polls don't do it anymore. and the democrats, john kerry coming nearly 1990's, joe lieberman in the early 1990's and others, said maybe this time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that has all gone. i have spoken with republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was that we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it is just not w
debate at the heart of the presidential race, which is, going forward, this is the obama administration's tagline. they would say let's let the agency do its job. the republican position is is ill-advised and we would like kill it or change it. host: how widespread is predatory lending these days and what is the agency currently doing about? about guest: predatory lending is deceptive lending practices o. it is extremely widespread. if you pick up a credit card application, you will see dozens of pages of fine print that is hard for anybody to really get through and most people don't even try. there are teaser rates, for instance, a lower rate on credit cards in a short amount of time that would triple or quadruple and they don't tell you that the upfront. it's in the fine print. it's very widespread. almost the essence of the new agency is to and changed the terms of debate so that predatory lending is very hard for companies to get away with, so that they have to make their money helping people save and invest and advance themselves financially rather than the way the system now is. s
the obama administration. >> in the book you write about the obama's administration handling of the withdrawal from iraq. the administration had a fresh chance to reengage with iraq's leaders and shape its politics. obama did not act decisively on that chance choosing ahead to take hands off approach on iraq. this decision was characteristic of those obama made on iraq. he saw america's involvement there not as an opportunity but rather as a leftover minefield, a path out of which had to be charted as quickly as possible. explain that to us. >> at the end of the bush administration, the beginning of the obama administration, violence was down substantially in iraq. the question was were we going to keep a small number of troops in iraq after 2011? how would that be negotiated? there was a significant difference, i think, in perspective between the pentagon where admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, civilians, saw iraq as an opportunity. they wanted to keep a reasonably sized force around 16,000. at the white house, the national security adviser saw it more t
, what sort of relationship should the united states have with iraq now. how did the obama administration handle the end of the war and where do we go from here. >> those are all important questions, but the whole war was built on a faulty prim is that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. >> i think it's conceded that they didn't have weapons of mass destruction. >> i remember i was in kuwait on the eve of the war. i had a gas masks, they were really fed basically a lie, if you will. >> no, i don't agree. i think that the intelligence was poor and badly done, but i do think -- >> when i say a lie, i mean the sources who were providing that intelligence, these false iraqi sources who were claiming there was poisonous gas here, chemical weapons there, that was a lie. >> i was imbedded for that period and i remember general conway was ahead of the marine forces and they intercepted the code word blood which they thought was the use of chemical weapons. >> the american forces believed that they would face chemical weapons. i remember skud missiles coming in. they believed it. i'm just sayi
court is now back in session for the first time since it ruled on the obama administration's landmark health care law last june. so how might mitt romney change the high court if he becomes president of the united states? he's already giving all of us some major clues. let's bring in cnn's crime and justice correspondent joe johns who's taking a closer look. what are you seeing? >> the supreme court doesn't get talked about that much on the campaign trail. but choosing a justice is one of the most important things a president does. it's how on administration puts its mark on some of the nation east toughest, most divisive issues. and we have a look at how mitt romney might handle it if he's president. whenever mitt romney fielded questions during the primaries about his picks for the supreme court, he was armed with a stock republican answer. >> what i would look to do would be to appoint people to the supreme court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to to legislating from the bench. >> reporter: but he wouldn't choose a favorite. >> would you pick one, please? >> y
was the highest ranking obama administration officials. -- ross, from texas. on our line for democrats. caller: what i wanted to say, i wanted to complement the show. i have been watching for years. a longtime fan. one thing i wish you and every moderator would do with the beginning of every interview is ask whoever you are interviewing to what they work for and where they get their pay from. and that way that would give the viewing public a better idea of what angle they are coming from. host: how does that information change from you are watching this segment? caller: it helps me to see what angle they are coming from. the people you have on your show are not unlike the general public. they are going to be a mouthpiece for whoever is writing their check. we have a better idea of what angle they are coming from. just like the lady you had earlier that was supporting the defense industry. i would like to ask or has she ever served in the military? she does not seem to have a problem with them loading up on weapons. it is pretty obvious -- her industry. to me, she represented her industry. host
of relief. not just in the obama administration but many who said, look, the deadline is next spring, next summer. there isn't going to be a possible israeli military strike before the election. but iran is doubling down. just today prime minister ahmadinejad back in tehran gave a press conference. and he said this, brooke, i'll quote him "we are not people to retreat on the nuclear issue. if somebody thinks they can pressure iran, they are certainly wrong and must correct their behavior." at least in terms of words, which actions are more important than words, but in terms of words not backing down at all. from is going to be the crucial question for the next president whether it's barack obama or mitt romney. >> absolutely. erin burnett, thank you very much. >> good to see you, brooke. >> good to see you. see you tonight
the same promises as mentioned in 2009, when he became president. so, i am not voting for obama. host: any questions for governor romney? caller: no, i like the way that he speaks. i think we need a change in this administration. we have had four years of terrible policy and i do not think the president's is telling the american people the truth. look at what happened in been gauzy. that is my comment. host: front page of "usa today," susan page reporting. host: here is what mitt romney could say, to convince people, according to a "usa today" poll. host: what could president obama do, according to this poll? host: lal, tracy landing, michigan. democratic line. good morning. caller: laurel? host: go right ahead. welcome to the show. caller, thank you. my question to obama -- why have you not allowed anyone to say one word about your college and high-school record? there is something there that is hidden and it makes me never willing to vote for you. it is scandalous. america, vote your conscience so the weekend of hold american values. host: this message from twitter -- host: the next is l
that the obama foreign policy is unraveling literally before our eyes on our tv screens. >> i think it interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey, that al qaeda is on the wane, that everything's fine in the middle east. >> you think it's political? >> i think there are certain political overtones. how else could you trot out our u.n. ambassador to say it was spontaneous? >> maybe it was. >> five days later? that doesn't pass the smell test. it was ever ignorance or willful intelligence. >> whether you agree with him or not, senator mccain has the credibility, a war hero, with great experience in washington dealing with foreign policy, how do you think, though, paul ryan did with that? is that turning the page? did that ring true? does that ring as credible saying president obama's foreign policy is unraveling? did that work? >> there is a time and a place for everything. the day after an ambassador's death is not the time to rush out and hold a press conference in america. and by the way, i said the same thing. well, i thought democrats were shameless during the ira
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)